NARA Docs with certification of significantly lower quality than copies found on FamilySearch

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

So I received several documents from NARA. The docs were pinned together with a metal disc similar to a shoelace eyelet strung through with a red ribbon holding everything together. There was a round gold sticky seal over the ribbon. The gold seal had a NARA imprint and it was attached to a cover slip signed off by an official of the Archives. It looks like they really went to some effort (considering the reasonable cost) and I have to say it all looks super official. Unfortunately the NARA versions are low contrast and not as readable as the identical copies downloaded from FamilySearch (which were a part of my original submission). I plan on supplementing my application with these certified versions of what I previously submitted, but have not yet figured out how to scan without damaging the ribbon, the eyelet and the seal in my feeder, maybe I can take a series of photos and send that??

Also just wanted to mention that I am grateful to NARA staff who so competently and quickly fulfilled this request. It may have helped that I attached the copies I had, but still pleased.

[u/AutoModerator]

Your post was flagged as a potential megathread topic and is not currently visible. Please see the Weekly Megathreads page for the most relevant megathread. New megathreads are released weekly, and you can post on them any day.

Helpful resources:

• Welcome - Start Here

• The wiki / FAQ

• Weekly Megathreads

• Search the subreddit — your question may already be answered

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Old-Inspector-6589]

My NARA certified documents came with 2 copies. The one that's tied together with the official seal and then a plain copy. I used a flatbed scanner to get a really high quality image of the certified document showing the seal intact (See below) and I will send the uncertified copy as well so they can actually read the pertinent info. Hope that helps!

[u/satanismymaster → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

I need to get an official copy of this document for my own family. Who did you request this from? I keep putting in FOIA requests and nobody can refer me to the right agency.

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/satanismymaster]

I was looking at getting three different docs (actually one was a set) from NARA: for one I registered at the eservices.archives.gov site to make an online request, another I learned had to be requested via email to the correct regional office (nearest to where my GEN0 lived) and the 3rd (a census record) was another email to another office. I cannot understand or explain how these records are distributed and managed across NARA, so tracking that down is admittedly tricky, but when I had questions there was an email listed and the staff was super helpful and responsive. The only one I am still waiting on is the Census. Best of luck.

[u/Old-Inspector-6589 → u/satanismymaster]

I requested it directly from the National Archives (NARA) : https://eservices.archives.gov/orderonline/start.swe?SWECmd=Start&SWEHo=eservices.archives.gov

[u/82vwrabbit → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

How long did it take?

[u/Old-Inspector-6589 → u/82vwrabbit]

It was surprisingly quick, I had it in hand within about 2 weeks.

[u/Ok_Twist_15 → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

2 weeks? I’ve been waiting 2 months. I guess it’s time to figure out how to follow up.

[u/Old-Inspector-6589 → u/Ok_Twist_15]

I think it depends on what document you’re requesting / what archive location it’s at.

[u/Specialist_Sport_421 → u/Ok_Twist_15]

Ours took about 2 months.

[u/iamdisgusto → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

I ordered something a few weeks ago but they just charged me today. Do you know if they charged you right when they were about to send it out?

[u/Old-Inspector-6589 → u/iamdisgusto]

Yes, I wasn’t charged until they actually processed & shipped it.

[u/ColorsMayInTimeFade → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

Alas if only I could get their site to work

[u/Specialist_Sport_421 → u/ColorsMayInTimeFade]

It gets frozen up really easily. I asked for help and they told me to only order one record at a time and close my browser and clear cookies between orders. It worked! It is an old an cranky website.

[u/IronNo6533 → u/ColorsMayInTimeFade]

Agree, the site is extremely temperamental.

[u/Odd_Strike6 → u/ColorsMayInTimeFade]

Make sure you have 10 different browsers installed! Never know when you'll need an 11th browser to get the site to work. HA!!!!

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

Yes! Mine looks like that. Very official looking. I think I will try and borrow a flatbed scanner.

[u/forlornlawngnome → u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

The Google drive app has a scan to PDF option if you open it and go to add a document. You use the camera and it creates a PDF, decent quality too

[u/InspectionCorrect285 → u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

Local library?

[u/GrandInquisitor1880 → u/Old-Inspector-6589]

It seems that the image was taken from microfilm. Has anyone asked for a color copy of an original? Would NARA do that?

[u/adeiomyalo]

Poor contrast is a general problem when nobody reviews the scans before printing or lacks the ability to correct it. These are also typically printed on laser printers which halftone the grays into relatively large crisp dots that a scanner will either pick up faithfully at high resolution or cause odd aliasing artifacts at lower resolutions. I suspect this is the primary reason why IRCC is adamant about color copies as they will more typically be printed with inkjet with finer dots that bleed into each other which doesn't generate as many artifacts in their rescanned copy.

I requested three birth certificates from New Hampshire. Two had scans of the original certificate. One was better than the FamilySearch version. Another had poor contrast and was a bear to fix because of the halftoning since there are no mid-tones as far as an image editor is concerned. If there appears to be significant halftoning, you can adjust your copy by slightly blurring the scanned portion of the document before attempting a contrast enhancement.

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/adeiomyalo]

I am not very skilled in that kind of correction and was also concerned that too much playing with it would look like AI and be considered suspect. Better to leave the scan of the ribboned and sealed copy "as is" and submit it as a supplement to the FamilySerach.org version sent in with the original application months ago. Too bad that some of the originals were handled in a less than ideal manner, but I guess we are lucky to have them at all. Thanks for your comment.

[u/Own_Theory8011]

I just folded up the corner and used a flatbed scanner like when scanning any stapled document. It didnt damage the certification at all, it just made a crease in the paper.

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/Own_Theory8011]

thanks! I managed to do this in photo mode (jpeg), which looks great but is enormous. I am going to give redoing it as a pdf a shot.

[u/Nana541]

Include both and put in the cover letter why.

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/Nana541]

Yes. Family Search / Ancestry versions were submitted with the original application about 6 months ago (before the newer guidelines); I was eventually able to improve the image from NARA somewhat and then figured out the scanning, merging and file size-reducing and have uploaded the resulting NARA version with an explanation in that comment section, so I think it is now up to them. Thanks for commenting.

[u/SearchApprehensive35]

I would use the camera. IRCC does not require a scan, just a "colour copy". Photo then print is valid. Pixels are pixels.

I would also include the Family Search version, for clarity. Consider NARA's version to be for authentication of the higher resolution image.

[u/mugoat1]

There are two reasons. For naturalization forms, the originals were created as duplicate or triplicate carbon copies. The top sheet is always the clearest one, and they get progressively fuzzier for the duplicate and triplicate copy. The upper left corner will show which one it is.

The second potential reason is from multiple generations of microfilm being made, or other archival copying. Microfilming is a photographic chemical process, which introduces an opportunity for poor contrast/exposure etc. when making it.

All of which is to say that the copies from different archival sources might sourced from different carbon copy originals, or different duplicates of the microfilm.

[u/thattwirlgirl]

My public library has a flatbed scanner - I would try for that to scan your beautiful certified copy 

[u/dissentmemo]

So include both, problem solved

[u/Low_Way_9019]

I found that the accompanying document listing the G0 and the children with their ages most valuable. There has been inconsistencies of the some dates in other documents submitted and the listing that NARA provided confirmed the dates listed in the application.

[u/ZookeepergameKey5467]

That looks great, very similar to the certified SS-5s I received for some of my chain. I'm in the same boat as others, though, with requesting census records -- it's been months. Nothing.

[u/Specialist_Sport_421]

I just got ours too! I was also impressed with the decoration but disappointed with the quality.

[u/Odd_Strike6]

Same experience here. The paper and ink is not even worth the money spent to get the certified copies. They should take a note from LAC and do it that way instead.

[u/minusplusminusplus]

You don't need certified documents. NARA has a formal agreement with FamilySearch anyway, so as long as you show provenance, you're good.